Christianity

[Dubious]

"Religions" contain a combination of truths and falsehoods

every "religion" or "philosophy" or "ideology" offers itself as truth.

Yep, so, basically, what Dubious said at the start.

Not at all. Just because somebody "offers something AS truth" doesn't mean it IS truth. Those are separate questions.

Dube thinks truth can depend on consensus. It never does.

...then how did Christianity come about...based on conditions that Jesus died for our sins since Adam, was crucified like any other number of blokes at the time and finally resurrected.

How did Christianity arise if not by consensus forged in a continuous refinement of dogma?

Again, care to explain?

[Harry Baird]

I've been after [AJ] to define his most important term, "Christian." But he won't.

Yeah. Just like I've been after him for (literally) years to describe - in detail - the truths that he sees behind Christianity despite his criticisms of Christianity. All I ever get in response is (roughly) "Do your own work and read this book". Weak.

It's almost as if he loves the flexibility it gives him, to be able to theorize about everything and nothing in particular at the same time. He seems irritated at the very idea he should have to say what he means, as if he supposes there's some kind of universal definition of "Christian" that everybody already agrees on, so he shouldn't have to do that.

Yeah. It's again pretty weak. He prompts other forum members to reveal their intent on this forum, and in this respect implies that his own intent is to have a certain conversation - but when I try to have the conversation with him that he appears to claim to want, I get merely the response that I indicated above ("Do your own work").

Now, I have people I disagree with and can be totally agreeable with.

If you can accept (biting) criticism, then perhaps you and I can engage in a dynamic of this sort.

Why "bite"? It's pointless.

Let me explain by way of analogy then. Let's say that we're part of debating club, and one of the members consistently breaches all the rules of logic and makes a mockery of debate.

In this analogy, your response would seem to be, "Point out his errors of logic, and only that. Don't say anything personal."

My response is: "Nonsense. Point out that his *consistent* and *unremitting* errors of logic indicate that they are either deliberate or self-deceiving, and that he is a bad-faith member of this debating club, and that, if we can't remove him, we at least ought to advertise as much widely."

... if the answer you failed to explicitly provide to my direct question is, "Yes, I am a Biblical literalist", then I'm going to be siding a lot more with AJ than with you.

You'd better define "literalist," then. It means a bunch of different things, depending on who uses it.

Functionally, I did, in the post to which I referred. I asked:

IC, is your belief in the Bible literal? That is to say, do you generally (or universally?) think that when it is written in the Bible that "so and so did such and such", that is generally (always?) a factually accurate reference to an actual historical character in an actual historical event? If only generally, and not universally/always, how do you distinguish between those which are and those which aren't?

(In case it's not clear, the "functional" bit is the reference to "so and so [doing] such and such", and whether you think that that is generally/always a factually accurate historical reference).

[Harry Baird]

...I'm going to be siding a lot more with AJ than with you.

Well, duh!

Your affirmation is appreciated, uwot. In sadder news (depending on one's perspective), I have - at least momentarily - lost motivation for my coding project, and am, after all, investing most of my (ample) spare time in this thread. You sort of predicted it (called it out) in your original grumpy comment. Kudos, sir.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I agree with you. AJ has a vague and wishy-washy definition of Christianity, to the extent that it even exists. He really ought to clarify it. Your definition, in contrast, is admirably clear and plausible.

This is I think inaccurate and highly so. I sense it also contains a bit of pique. I understand clearly I think what is the essence of the Christian belief system. I outlined this just above when asked to elaborate on my sense of metaphysics. Additionally, I have done a good deal of reading into the Medieval and post-Medieval worldpicture that can best be understood through depth research into the 17th century and Shakespeare. This is not strict Christianity and it is much much more. Many different strains have gone into it. I am more interested in that system (the Great Chain of Being, etc.) not because I 'believe in it' but because it is the foundation of so much of the Occidental system.

It is not that my definition is 'vague' so much as I myself am an 'outcome' of the post-Christian processes I research and often have written about. So there are two distinct aspects, one being an understanding of what Christians believe and what a Christian *does*, and the other and the far more relevant one in my view is what is going on in post-Christendom. There is no way that I cannot be what I am and there is no way I could turn back the clock and return to some other temporal modality.

It just so happened that during the course of the months I have participated here recently that a great deal about all of this became clear to me. I've had to revise so much. It is still on-going.

wish·y-wash·y (wĭsh′ē-wŏsh′ē, -wô′shē)
adj. wish·y-wash·i·er, wish·y-wash·i·est Informal
1.
a. Irresolute or indecisive: a wishy-washy supervisor who can't decide what to do.
b. Lacking in purpose; weak or ineffective: a wishy-washy response to the criticism.
2. Thin and watery, as tea or soup.

I do not think wishy-washy is the right term. I am not selling or representing or acting as an apologist for Christian belief. In fact I am edging toward definitions that are antidotal in certain aspects to a standard Christian definition. Some of this I can write about and some of it is too edgy and controversial. The other aspect is that I find I focus more heavily on the 'logos' aspect that is presented, for example, in the Gospel of John. That opens up into Greek concepts and I am far more interested in those than in strict Hebrew Christianity. (This is the source of Immanuel's opposition to my orientation, essentially).

Can you talk more about why you think the term wishy-washy is a far one? What do you see me as being wishy-washy about exactly?

[Immanuel Can]

...then how did Christianity come about...based on conditions that Jesus died for our sins since Adam, was crucified like any other number of blokes at the time and finally resurrected.

The Bible itself declares reality as the standard for all of that. See 1 Cor.15:12-20. Writing to the Christians in an early church, Paul declared,

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead..."

You could not possibly find a more ringing and absolute declaration that Christianity stands or falls on the real fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There's no attempt here at all to salvage "Christianity" as a metaphor, far less to make it a matter of "consensus." Paul does not tell the Christians it will be just fine, so long as the majority happens to believe in a literal Resurrection: it's all or nothing. If Christ has not been raised, then the whole game is over. Period.

And how did Christianity arise? Because of the actual fact of a literal Resurrection. That's the shortest answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yeah. Just like I've been after him for (literally) years to describe - in detail - the truths that he sees behind Christianity despite his criticisms of Christianity. All I ever get in response is (roughly) "Do your own work and read this book". Weak.

You are free to describe it as you wish to of course. Yet I am not at all, or if at all only very slightly embarrassed that I am not in a position to write what would be a series of essays on the topic. It is beyond my present capabilities. But there is another aspect here: You ask for a sort of Reader's Digest version -- a list really -- that you can pick apart, or agree in some details, and I definitely *accuse* you of being lazy and basically uninterested in the entire topic. It seems to me that you yourself should have a better understanding than what you do have. In fact I did mention a series of things in my recent post -- but no one of them registers on your radar. So you glossed them over and assert that no effort was made to answer the question.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah. It's again pretty weak. He prompts other forum members to reveal their intent on this forum, and in this respect implies that his own intent is to have a certain conversation - but when I try to have the conversation with him that he appears to claim to want, I get merely the response that I indicated above ("Do your own work").

That's the sort of thing I got from him, too. But eventually, all I got was silence, because I didn't give up the point.

Let me explain by way of analogy then. Let's say that we're part of debating club, and one of the members consistently breaches all the rules of logic and makes a mockery of debate.

In this analogy, your response would seem to be, "Point out his errors of logic, and only that. Don't say anything personal."

My response is: "Nonsense. Point out that his *consistent* and *unremitting* errors of logic indicate that they are either deliberate or self-deceiving, and that he is a bad-faith member of this debating club, and that, if we can't remove him, we at least ought to advertise as much widely."

Yep, you've got our two positions right on that. I endeavour never to advocate character assassination or ad hominem arguing. I continue to believe that when all ideas are aired, the best will rise to the surface...so long as discourse is not suppressed and nobody silences anyone. So bad ideas are no threat. Only the shutting down of discourse through such means as exclusionary tactics is a threat.

... if the answer you failed to explicitly provide to my direct question is, "Yes, I am a Biblical literalist", then I'm going to be siding a lot more with AJ than with you.

You'd better define "literalist," then. It means a bunch of different things, depending on who uses it.

Functionally, I did, in the post to which I referred. I asked:

IC, is your belief in the Bible literal? That is to say, do you generally (or universally?) think that when it is written in the Bible that "so and so did such and such", that is generally (always?) a factually accurate reference to an actual historical character in an actual historical event? If only generally, and not universally/always, how do you distinguish between those which are and those which aren't?

I need more on that.

For example, does a "literalist," in your understanding, have to have no concept of poetry or metaphor? Does he have to be a kind of literary Philistine who thinks a "parable" has to have actually happened, even when it's labelled a "parable"? Or can you entertain, within your definition of "literalist," the kind of person who believes that what the Scripture affirms as true and presents as fact is true and factual, and that which it presents as metaphor or poetry or analogy is interpretable as those things?

I would be "literal" in some sense, but not in others. As I was just telling Dubious, I'm a literalist about the Resurrection, for example. But then, so is Paul. That does not mean I regard The Prodigal Son as actual, or comments about camels and eyes of needles as literal.

Moreover, some events are both literal AND metaphorical. For example, the crossing of the Red Sea is understandable as a literal, historical event; but it's also understandable as a kind of "baptism" metaphor, as the NT makes very clear. There's no conflict in saying both.

Does that make things any clearer?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You could not possibly find a more ringing and absolute declaration that Christianity stands or falls on the real fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Within religious and mythic lore from many different places and cultures resurrections of this sort have been, let's say, reported and believed in. So Christianity is one among numerous that deal in such fantastic tales. And they are 'fantastic tales' that do not really have an substantial value and meaning except to prove that a hero overcame all obstacles. That not even death could stop his project. It is a very powerful story and it has all sorts of different meanings and allusions. It seems to me that the metaphorical dimension of the story is more meaningful and relevant than, say, the literal version.

If Christianity falls if one does not, or cannot, believe in the resurrection of a dead person, or that that person was an Avatar of God who descended into the flesh, that is in my view a fault of the one working the belief. Because the metaphor -- life springs eternal -- is actually a stronger message. You certainly cannot kill the power of metaphysical ideas. Or you can but it resurrects.

[Immanuel Can]

You could not possibly find a more ringing and absolute declaration that Christianity stands or falls on the real fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Within religious and mythic lore from many different places and cultures resurrections of this sort have been, let's say, reported and believed in. So Christianity is one among numerous that deal in such fantastic tales. And they are 'fantastic tales' that do not really have an substantial value and meaning except to prove that a hero overcame all obstacles. That not even death could stop his project. It is a very powerful story and it has all sorts of different meanings and allusions. It seems to me that the metaphorical dimension of the story is more meaningful and relevant than, say, the literal version.

The Apostle Paul disagrees with you. And, of course, so do I.

Christianity made into a mere metaphor is worthless. As Paul puts it, "if Christ has not be raised...we [Christians] are of all men most miserable." No appeal for "saving the case by way of metaphor" there.

[Harry Baird]

Can you talk more about why you think the term wishy-washy is a far one? What do you see me as being wishy-washy about exactly?

We are on a philosophy forum. Philosophy is the quest for wisdom through clear thinking. Clear definitions are essential to clear thought, or at least to the clear communication of thought.

IC has provided a clear and appropriate definition of "Christianity", namely (my paraphrasing) "The ethics, behaviour, rituals, and beliefs based directly in the teachings of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible".

You have not. You refuse to do so. You refuse (unless I am misremembering my reading of this thread) even to explain what is wrong with IC's definition. Note that I am not saying that it is impossible that there is something wrong with his definition, just that, prima facie, given that the name of the guy on which the religion is based is part of the religion's name, it's perfectly appropriate to include him heavily when defining the religion.

In any case, the most compelling personal argument I can make for why "wishy-washy" is a fair term is that despite reading through this entire thread - and I think that I am a fair and reasonable reader - I as yet have no idea how to paraphrase your definition of "Christianity" anywhere near as clearly as I am able to paraphrase IC's. I simply have no idea what it is, and you seem to find it of no importance to provide it.

Here is an extract from my personal notes that I took when reading this thread to prove that I am not making this up on the spot:

== Definitions: What *is* Christianity? ==

* Can Man's definition seems to be something like this: Christianity is that which is taught by Jesus Christ - who came to Earth as God incarnate - and adherence to his teachings, which are accurately recorded in the Bible.

* Bjorn aGus's definition is vaguer and more sprawling; more to do with culture and syncretism (especially with respect to the Greeks and Platonism more specifically); more interested in how Indo-Europeans understood and developed it; far harder to understand than Can Man's definition. It is not clear that he (Bjorn aGus) even believes in an historical Christ, and he certainly dismisses large parts of the Bible as an absurd Story in which it is no longer possible for modern man to believe.

Beyond the point in contention (wishy-washyness), I think it's fair at this point to raise another issue: that you do not seem to even be Christian (however you might define such), not even in a wishy-washy sense, and thus are not exactly in a good position to define the term even if you were to choose to do so. I base this assessment on my understanding based on a reading of this thread, as illustrated in the private notes that I took while reading, which I present verbatim, without attempting to massage them into shape for public presentation:

== Bjorn aGus's critical view of Christianity ==

* He lays it all out here, whilst noting that a more affirmative list could also be offered (but will it be?): viewtopic.php?p=568063#p568063

* Additionally, later, he adds this curious nugget: "To be frank with you I think that I do not accept Jesus Christ, the person (I know he is described and viewed as a God-Man), as being an authority to which one can turn for any decisions." --viewtopic.php?p=573958#p573958 And even later: "And I personally have a difficult time relating to or even locating the 'personality of Jesus' and, no, Jesus is not very 'iconic' for me (personally)." --viewtopic.php?p=578905#p578905

* Even later, he adds this bombshell: "I do not believe in, and find it impossible to believe in, an absolute external source that is defined as God." -- viewtopic.php?p=574775#p574775 In that post, he elaborates on this notion, including this morsel: "What is God? Where is God? Once you've done the math, so to speak, the only conclusion that remains is that God and Psyche, or Psyche and God, is the only place that the *endeavor* could take place."

* This is curious, since he apparently *does* believe in other worlds based on other comments he's made, e.g., re the passage from the Baghavad Gita he likes so much indicating that a person can go up or down through the worlds: "The idea of a 'world beyond' that is better and more real than this world, became untenable and indeed an unhealthy idea to hold to." --viewtopic.php?p=575190#p575190

* Following up on the above, in a later post, there's this: "If you asked me to comment on the *afterworld* or worlds beyond or continuing life after this terrestrial life has ended, I do not think I could respond through conventional concepts." --viewtopic.php?p=576741#p576741

* Yet we also have this in a yet later post: "I do not dis-believe in God, therefore I would check the box *one God*. But at that point, and with that 'declaration', I would say and I do say that everything about understanding that god and defining that god's theology (so to speak) gets difficult, intricate and complex. And here is another statement: though I can say 'I believe in one god' (in the sense that I do not believe in no-god or multiple-gods) I do not accept, and find I cannot accept, the Standard Version (here I refer to the Christian picture) through which the notion of the one god is revealed and explained." --viewtopic.php?p=577067#p577067

[Harry Baird]

Summing up, AJ:

You are a non-Christian who rejects the Christianity that he nevertheless admires yet fails to know how to define.

Does that seem fair?

[Dubious]

...then how did Christianity come about...based on conditions that Jesus died for our sins since Adam, was crucified like any other number of blokes at the time and finally resurrected.

The Bible itself declares reality as the standard for all of that. See 1 Cor.15:12-20. Writing to the Christians in an early church, Paul declared,

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead..."

You could not possibly find a more ringing and absolute declaration that Christianity stands or falls on the real fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There's no attempt here at all to salvage "Christianity" as a metaphor, far less to make it a matter of "consensus." Paul does not tell the Christians it will be just fine, so long as the majority happens to believe in a literal Resurrection: it's all or nothing. If Christ has not been raised, then the whole game is over. Period.

And how did Christianity arise? Because of the actual fact of a literal Resurrection. That's the shortest answer.

That response was as clear and succinct as could be. I like reading these kinds of posts regardless of whatever category I'd place them in.

So to declare the bible as the standard of reality would, I agree, logically not require a consensus since revealed truth and reality does not require agreement if such is presupposed. It is as it stands. Of course, and here I think you would agree, that necessitates accepting the bible as a narrative literally true from cover to cover being itself the revelation of it.

In summary, its words denote the literal truth beyond which there can be no higher.

Have I got that right or approximately so?

[Harry Baird]

You ask for a sort of Reader's Digest version -- a list really -- that you can pick apart, or agree in some details

That's a strawman. I don't care how you present it, whether as a list, an essay, or a downloadable Mind Bomb. I'm just seeking something more specific than you default to. In any case, so what if I wanted a Reader's Digest version? If it is compelling content, then why couldn't it be summarised in that format?

I definitely *accuse* you of being lazy

Lazy? Sure, I'll cop that, even though it's more that I have other interests.

and basically uninterested in the entire topic.

Uninterested? No, I won't cop that. And while you've offered much that is of interest, you refuse to get to down to brass tacks, which is what would be of most interest.

In fact I did mention a series of things in my recent post -- but no one of them registers on your radar.

I'm not sure which post you're referring to, but I've responded to all of them, and thus I am not sure as to what you think hasn't registered on my radar.

[Harry Baird]

[C]an you entertain, within your definition of "literalist," the kind of person who believes that what the Scripture affirms as true and presents as fact is true and factual, and that which it presents as metaphor or poetry or analogy is interpretable as those things?

Yes. That's included in what I meant. I'm not unreasonably contending that literalism means that poetry and parables are taken literally.

I would be "literal" in some sense, but not in others. As I was just telling Dubious, I'm a literalist about the Resurrection, for example.

OK. Great. That's helpful. Can we explore others? I would be particularly interested in whether you are literalist about:

1. The Garden of Eden, and in particular whether or not it is a literal location on planet Earth, and, if not, where its literal location is.
2. Noah's Ark, and whether that vessel contained two of every creature on Earth, and whether the planet was repopulated solely from those creatures.
3. Jonah living in the belly of a whale for several days.

I might add more later, if you're amenable, but those are to start with.

[Harry Baird]

I would be "literal" in some sense, but not in others. As I was just telling Dubious, I'm a literalist about the Resurrection, for example.

OK. Great. That's helpful.

Oh, and to add, as I asked in my original post: how do you determine what you take literally and what you don't?